DIVINE

That which belongs or pertains to God, or is godlike or heavenly.

In some places in the Hebrew Scriptures the words ʼEl (the singular form of the word “God”) and ʼElo·himʹ (the plural form of excellence of the word “God”) are used one after the other. Thus at Joshua 22:22 and Psalm 50:1 the Hebrew text reads ʼEl ʼElo·himʹ Y^eho·wahʹ. While some translations (BC [Spanish], Ro) simply transliterate the first two words of this phrase, others render them as “the God of gods” (AT, JB, La, VM [Spanish]) or, somewhat more accurately, “The Mighty One, God” (AS, Mo, RS), and “Divine One, God” (NW).—See EL; ELOHIM.

In the Christian Greek Scriptures certain words derived from the·osʹ (god) appear and relate to that which is divine. The related words theiʹos, thei·oʹtes, and the·oʹtes occur at Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9 and 2 Peter 1:3, 4.

At Acts 17:29, Paul, when in Athens, showed that it was illogical for humans to imagine that “the Divine Being [to theiʹon, form of theiʹos] is like gold or silver or stone.” (NW) Many translators here use terms such as “the Godhead,” “the Deity,” or “the divinity” (AV, AS, Dy, ED, JB, RS), while E. J. Goodspeed’s translation says, “the divine nature.” (AT) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (p. 628) shows that the phrase to theiʹon was used by ancient Greek writers to mean “the divine Being or Essence, the Deity.” According to ancient Greek usage, then, this word can be translated by words indicating divine personality or by terms indicating divine qualities or attributes, and this is true of the other words (thei·oʹtes and the·oʹtes) mentioned earlier. Obviously, then, the context and sense of what is stated must guide the translator in his choice of words.

At Romans 1:20 the apostle refers to the undeniable visible evidence of God’s “invisible qualities,” in particular his “eternal power and Godship [thei·oʹtes].” (NW) Other translations read “Godhead,” “deity,” or “divinity,” while Goodspeed’s translation says “divine character.” Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (Vol. III, p. 16), in commenting on this text, states “[Thei·oʹtes] is godhood, not godhead. It signifies the sum-total of the divine attributes.”

Then, at Colossians 2:9 the apostle Paul says of Christ: “It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality [form of the·oʹtes] dwells bodily.” Here, again, some translators lean toward attributing personality to the word the·oʹtes, rendering it as “Godhead” or “Deity.” E. J. Goodspeed’s translation, however, says, “It is in him that all the fulness of God’s nature lives embodied.” (See also Weymouth.) Lexicographers Liddell and Scott also allow for the meaning of “divine nature” here, and Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 334) gives as one meaning of the word “the divine nature and perfections,” referring to Colossians 2:9 as an example.

It can be seen that the renderings of Colossians 2:9 that favor a sense of personality would give the idea of God’s personally dwelling in Christ, a view held by trinitarians. The translations expressing “divine nature” or qualities would, instead, indicate that Christ is the very embodiment of the divine qualities, such as wisdom (1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 2:3; Rev. 5:11, 12); hence, as the context shows, those in the Christian congregation would look to the resurrected Jesus, their divinely appointed Head, for all their guidance and instruction, as well as blessings, from God, and not to human philosophers and traditionalists. (Col. 2:8-10; compare 1:18-20.) Jesus, therefore, had the “fullness” of all that such Christians needed. This, it must be noted, was granted him by his Father, who raised him from the dead and sat him “on the right hand of [God’s] majesty” as the “reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being.”—Heb. 1:1-3; Phil. 2:8-11.

Finally, at 2 Peter 1:3, 4 the apostle shows that by virtue of the “precious and very grand promises” extended to faithful anointed Christians by divine power, they “may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.” Elsewhere in the Scriptures Christians are referred to as ‘sharing’ with Christ in his sufferings, in a death like his, and in a resurrection like his to immortality as spirit creatures, becoming joint heirs with him in the heavenly kingdom. (1 Cor. 15:50-54; Phil. 3:10, 11; 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:2-4; Rev. 20:6) Thus it is evident that the sharing of Christians in “divine nature” is with Christ, and also with their fellow heirs, rather than with Jehovah God. Since “nature” is generally associated with that which is produced, or is born or grows, it is inappropriate to speak of God as having “nature”; he is without birth or growth, having no beginning. However, he can give divine nature or qualities to others.—Ps. 90:1, 2; 93:2; 1 Tim. 1:17.

The verb form “to divine” generally means to employ divination, a practice directly condemned by Jehovah God.—Deut. 18:10-12; see DIVINATION.

DIVORCE

Legal and Scriptural dissolution of the marital union. Hence the severance of the marriage bond between a husband and a wife.

When Jehovah united Adam and Eve in wedlock he made no provision for divorce. Jesus Christ made this clear when answering the Pharisees’ question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?” Christ showed that God purposed for man to leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife, the two becoming one flesh. Then Jesus added: “So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.” (Matt. 19:3-6; compare Genesis 2:22-24.) The Pharisees next asked: “Why, then, did Moses prescribe giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” In reply, Christ said: “Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning.”—Matt. 19:7, 8.

Though divorce was allowed among the Israelites on various grounds as a concession, Jehovah God regulated it in his law given to Israel through Moses. Deuteronomy 24:1 reads: “In case a man takes a woman and does make her his possession as a wife, it must also occur that if she should find no favor in his eyes because he has found something indecent on her part, he must also write out a certificate of divorce for her and put it in her hand and dismiss her from his house.” Just what “something indecent” (literally, “the nakedness of a thing”) was is not specifically stated.

Separate views concerning this ‘indecency’ were held by the two schools of Jewish rabbis in existence prior to and during the days when Jesus Christ was on earth. One school, headed by Shammai, considered this ‘indecency’ to be adultery. However, that it was not adultery is indicated by the fact that God’s law given to Israel decreed that those guilty of adultery be put to death, not merely be divorced. (Deut. 22:22-24) The older rabbinic school of Hillel I and his followers thought the expression applied to a number of minor matters, interpreting it broadly to denote faults, deformities and shortcomings on the wife’s part, even to the point of spoiling food by burning it or by improperly seasoning it.

Though Deuteronomy 24:1 does not specify the ‘indecency’ that would give a Hebrew husband some basis for divorcing his wife, doubtless originally it involved serious matters, perhaps such as the wife’s showing gross disrespect for the husband or bringing shame on the household. Since the Law specified that “you must love your fellow as yourself,” it is not reasonable to assume that petty faults could be used with impunity as excuses for divorcing a wife.—Lev. 19:18.

In the days of Malachi many Jewish husbands were dealing treacherously with their wives, divorcing them on all kinds of grounds, ridding themselves of the wives of their youth, possibly in order to marry younger pagan women. Instead of upholding God’s law, the priests allowed this, and Jehovah was greatly displeased. (Mal. 2:10-16) That Jewish men were using many grounds for divorce when Jesus Christ was on earth is indicated by the question the Pharisees put to Jesus: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of ground?”—Matt. 19:3.

Among the Israelites a man customarily paid a dowry for the woman who became his wife and she was considered his possession. While enjoying many blessings and privileges, hers was the subordinate role in the marital union. Her position is further shown by Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which pointed out that the husband might divorce his wife but said nothing about the wife divorcing her husband. Being considered his property, she could not divorce him. In secular history, the first recorded instance of a woman in Israel trying to divorce her husband was when King Herod’s sister Salome sent her husband, the governor of Idumea, a bill of divorce dissolving their marriage. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV, chap. VII, par. 10) That such divorce action by women had begun to crop up when Jesus was on earth, or that he foresaw its development, may be indicate by Christ’s words: “If ever a woman, after divorcing her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.”—Mark 10:12.

CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE

It should not be concluded from the later abuses that the original Mosaic divorce concession made it easy for an Israelite husband to divorce his wife. In order to do so, he had to take formal steps. It was necessary to write a document, to “write out a certificate of divorce for her.” The divorcing husband had to “put it in her hand and dismiss her from his house.” (Deut. 24:1) While the Scriptures do not provide additional details on this procedure, this legal step apparently involved consultation with duly authorized men, who might first endeavor to effect a reconciliation. The time involved in preparing the certificate and legally implementing the divorce would afford the divorcing husband opportunity to reconsider his decision. There would have to be a basis for the divorce and, when the regulation was properly applied, this would logically serve as a deterrent to rash action in obtaining divorces. Then, too, the wife’s rights and interests were thus protected.

The Scriptures do not disclose the contents of the “certificate of divorce.” Information about the certificate’s contents dates only as far back as Talmudic times, in the early centuries of the Common Era. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Vol. II, p. 864) gives the following example of an early form of divorce certificate used by the Jews:

“On the..... day of the week.....in the month.....in the year.....from the beginning of the world, according to the common computation in the province of.....I.....the son of. .. by whatever name I may be known, of the town of.....with entire consent of mind, and without any constraint, have divorced, dismissed and expelled thee.....daughter of.....by whatever name thou art called, of the town.....who hast been my wife hitherto; But now I have dismissed thee.....the daughter of.....by whatever name thou art called, of the town of.....so as to be free at thy own disposal, to marry whomsoever thou pleasest, without hindrance from anyone, from this day for ever. Thou art therefore free for anyone [who would marry thee]. Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.

REMARRIAGE OF DIVORCED MATES

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 also stipulated that the divorced woman “must go out of his house and go and become another man’s,” meaning that she was eligible for remarriage. It was also stated: “If the latter man has come to hate her and has written out a certificate of divorce for her and put it in her hand and dismissed her from his house, or in case the latter man who took her as his wife should die, the first owner of her who dismissed her will not be allowed to take her back again to become his wife after she has been defiled; for that is something detestable before Jehovah, and you must not lead the land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance into sin.” The former husband was barred from taking the divorced wife back, perhaps so as to prevent the possibility of any scheming between him and this remarried wife to force her divorce from her second husband, or to cause his death, thereby allowing for remarriage with her previous husband. If her former marriage mate took her back it would be an unclean thing in God’s eyes, and the first husband would stultify himself because he had dismissed her as a woman in whom he had found “something indecent” and then, after she had been lawfully joined to another man and used as his wife, he took her back once again.

Doubtless the very fact that the original husband could not remarry his divorced wife after she became another man’s, even if that man divorced her or died, made the husband contemplating divorce action think seriously before acting to end the marriage. (Jer. 3:1) However, nothing was said that would prohibit him from remarrying his divorced wife if she had not remarried again after the legal severance of their marriage tie.

SENDING AWAY PAGAN WIVES

Before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, they were told to form no marriage alliances with its pagan inhabitants. (Deut. 7:3, 4) Nonetheless, in the days of Ezra the Jews had taken foreign wives and, in prayer to God, Ezra acknowledged their guiltiness in this matter. In response to his urging and in acknowledgment of their error, the men of Israel who had taken foreign wives sent them away “along with sons.” (Ezra 9:10–10:44) However, Christians, coming from all different nations (Matt. 28:19), were not to divorce mates who were not worshipers of Jehovah, nor was it even desirable for them to separate from such marriage partners, as Paul’s inspired counsel shows. (1 Cor. 7:10-28) Yet, when it came to contracting a new marriage Christians were counseled to marry “only in the Lord.”—1 Cor. 7:39.

JOSEPH’S CONTEMPLATED DIVORCE ACTION

While Mary was promised in marriage to Joseph, but before they were united, she was found to be pregnant by holy spirit, and the account states: “However, Joseph her husband, because he was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle, intended to divorce her secretly.” (Matt. 1:18, 19) Since engagement was such a binding arrangement among the Jews at that time, the word “divorce” is properly used here.

If an engaged girl submitted to having relations with another man, she was stoned to death the same as an adulteress. (Deut. 22:22-29) In cases that might result in stoning an individual to death, two witnesses were required in order to establish the person’s guilt. (Deut. 17:6, 7) Obviously, Joseph had no witnesses against Mary. Mary was pregnant, but Joseph did not understand the matter thoroughly until Jehovah’s angel gave him the explanation. (Matt. 1:20, 21) Whether the ‘secret divorce’ he contemplated would